June 01, 2008

Can a candidate worship in peace?

Sen. Barack Obama chided reporters in South Dakota on Saturday for suggesting that he joined Trinity United Church of Christ 20 years ago to fulfill his political aspirations.

He also made it clear that his recent departure from Trinity had everything to do with the controversy it added to his presidential campaign and the anxiety that his bid brought to the South Side church.

Is there a congregation that can welcome the Obama family into its pews and withstand the scrutiny that accompanies them? Is there a pastor out there who wants to give it a try?

Leaders of Trinity and its national denomination expressed regret about Obama’s unexpected decision on Saturday. Rev. John Thomas, president of the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ, indicated that the denomination was caught by surprise.

Prior to Obama's announcement of his presidential bid, the Illinois senator championed a public conversation about the power of faith and the role it plays in people’s lives. He was invited to address that topic during the UCC’s national convention in Hartford, Conn. last June.

But the public conversation that Obama called for soon became the domain of pundits who criticized remarks by Trinity’s now retired pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and questioned whether Obama echoed all of his pastor’s opinions.

Obama affirmed that importance of the conversation about faith and public life on Saturday and clarified that he did not feel he was facing an unfair religious test for public office. He also clarified that his decision to leave Trinity was not a political maneuver. Had he considered his membership at Trinity a political liability, he said he would have withdrawn in February instead of asking Wright to pray with him privately backstage in Springfield that day. (Wright was originally asked to deliver a public invocation, but Obama's campaign rescinded that invitation shortly before the event.)

Thomas expressed sorrow and sympathy for Obama and other candidates who wish to worship in today’s highly charged political climate.

“It’s also important to name the painful reality that many candidates and public officials now find it nearly impossible to be an active member of a particular religious community, given our divisive political culture,” Thomas said in a statement. “Faith is rooted in community. Persons in public office should have the same opportunity, as the rest of us, to experience the worship, prayers and close personal friendships that congregational participation affords.”

Former Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, shared a similiar experience. Earlier this year, reporters and pundits trained their microscopes on the Mormon church, parsing its doctrines and examining its rituals until Romney dropped out of the contest. Romney tried to explain how his faith informed his politics, even delivering a landmark speech on religion and public life similar to the speech Obama later delivered on race in America.

Obama said he and his family won't start church-shopping until January, when a new president (perhaps him) is settled in the White House. But he is confident that his family will find a church where they will feel welcome to hear the word of God, connect with the spirit and send his daughters to Sunday school. He said he will be looking for a church that, like Trinity, does not treat Christianity as a refuge from real world problems, but as a way to tackle them.

What do you think? Can a political figure join a congregation without putting it and its spiritual leader under the microscope?

Comments

You missed the whole point. The tape of this priest was disturbing not because of his behavior, and not because the pastor chose him to speak. It was the congregation's laughing and standing up to applause that was disturbing. The Obamas no doubt have heard this type of message for 20 years and they exposed their children to hear this message. That is why Obama is under scrutiny.

The very same thing would have happened if this was a white candidate. The same rules apply. Equality can sometimes be a very difficult thing to embrace.

Given what the right wing did with this it may not be possible for Obama as wherever he goes there there will be people with microphones taping every comment made in a service by the pastor. As soon as they get a sound byte they can play on the internet they'll go for the jugular again.

What's tragic in all this is the depths to which Republicans have sunk to win elections. Rather than focus on the issues they send out their bloodhounds to sniff up something they can use to attack the character of the other candidate.

The point is, as long as you've got people like Rush Limbaugh making a living throwing mud it made be next to impossible for a candidate to find a church to worship in.

Are you kidding me? Obama could join any one of the majority of Christian churches -Black or white-(or a mosque or temple for that matter) in this country and not hear sermons based on hatred, predjudice and character assassination. However he doesn't need one now that he has sewed up the nomination. He had no religious beliefs before he got into Chicago politics and my guess is he still doesn't. Get it right! The fact is that the scruntiny only came after the ravings of two fringe lunatics caught the public's eye. Will the media apologize for EVERYTHING Obama does? If so, it is going to be a long four years if he manages to get elected.

"But is Thomas right? Can a political figure join a house of worship without putting its spiritual leader or congregation under the microscope?"

Of course. And for the most part, the religious choices of candidates have not been subjected to this type of scrutiny.

But I think that there are -- and should be -- valid exceptions to this. When a candidate's or an office-holder's church attempts to use his or her religion to hijack policy (as with John Kerry and some of the Catholic archbishops), then people are right to raise objections.

This is also true when the so-called "Religious Right" attempts to impose church driven policies on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage on the rest of us.

If a candidate is a member of a church where seditious views are preached -- and applauded -- on a more or less weekly basis, then that needs to be looked at as well.

I've posted on this particular blog once before, and my views are still the same. If Mel Gibson were running for President, with his views, I would expect everything in his life, from friends and confidants, to advisors and consultants to be scrutinized.
And speaking of Gibson, my father was a "raised in the faith" Jew, but I am a Southern Baptist and a lifelong conservative Democrat, a 55 year old blue collar worker and a Vietnam combat veteran who lives in the deep south.
I will not be voting for McCain because of his plans for Iraq, nor for Clinton because of her husband and I won't be voting for Obama because I'm convinced he does share many of the views of these people who HE has called advisors and mentors.
As a person who has seen what race and ethnic hatred can do, and has done, to this country (I lived with a Jewish father during the 50s and 60s in the South), I learned that if a man spends time with others at Klan meetings, not to believe him when he says he doesn't share their views.
In the future, if the Matthew Hales and David Dukes front their own political candidates, will they be as defended and protected as Senator Obama, Wright and Pfleger? Why do you think so little has been heard from the white supremacists? Next time, it won't be Trinity United Church of Christ, it will be the World Church of the Creator.
A road is being paved in this issue of race hatred, prejudice and politics, one you can't simply rip up when other extremists want to use it.

It's a shame that the Obabma’s have been forced to leave their church. There is a sad cultural element at play in this. Why is it that these same sorts of controversies have not erupted for the many Roman Catholic politicians whose churches decry abortion from the pulpit, but whose constituents support a woman's right to choice, and who in turn politically support the constituent position, rather than that of the church. Can't Barak Obama too, practice his faith freely, without undue influence on his politics? Shame on America for hounding Mitt Romney so ceaselessly about his faith and the tenets of his church. Ours is an intolerant society!

Your point towards the end of the article is a key to Obama's problem with UCC.

In what way did the specific statements [of which we are all aware] made by Revs. Right and Pfleger help the members of Trinity Church deal with real world problems?

To ask another question, how did the manner in which these statements were shared encourage the membership to live out the New Testament ideals of humility,love for your enemies, and respect for your fellow man?

The problem here is straightforward: TCC is an anti-American and racist cesspool. Obama's membership at TCC over a twenty year period is germain to answering the question "who is Barck Obama." It would appear that many, many Americans are finding that they do not like what they are finding.

The controversy that engulfed the campaign of Senator Obama and "his" place of worship and the comments made by "his" pastorial leadership was a sad and tragic play on the rights of privacy crossing the line of public disclosure.
What a pastor says to his congregation in the confines of a church must be respected as between that pastor and his congregation. The socalled "Separation Between Church and State" was enacted to not politicalize worship and respect the secularism that this country was founded upon. Like all religous worship, which is emotional it does not mesh with politics because of its play on the individuals emotional character not his or her political character because that is consensus of the many.
Those who published the words of Pastor Wright did so in a way to harm Senator Obama's campaign and divert the attention away from his historic achivement to become the first African-American President of the United States and nothing more! But, it will back fire because all mature minded voters know that we are not stupid enough to believe that Obama is responsible for everything a pastor says in his or her ministorial presentation. Is like publishing a conversation one has with a personal loved one and having the world debate it merits knowing full well we do not understand both emotional character and the context of that conversation. I have been angered to no end by this low character that made Senator Obama decide to quit his church. What's next?...maybe its also time for him to divorce his wife because of her comments about now being proud of America and the struggles they have faced during their raise to national attention!

Now that politicians have declared "guilt by association" as a legitimate campaign tactic, it's clear that no politician can afford any kind of personal associations whatsoever: no church, no pastor, no friends, no associates, no serving on boards of charities because another board member might be "suspect" in someone's eyes, etc. etc. We've become a nation of moronic judgmental hypocrites. No wonder the other civilized nations of the world think we're nuts. We are!

The media played the right wing sychophant in cherry picking and repeating from the pastors' sermons. How those errors are attributed to Obama is beyond reason and about as dumb as attributing an editor's obesity to a beat reporter. Harrassing other parishioners, even shut-ins, to churn a mindless story was anti-social and served no useful purpose.

No. Not in America, where people seem to vote for the candidate's pastor and not for his ideals. Pastors, moreover, have no business talking politics in church. It seems that everything except the Bible is talked about in church, especially during election year.

How hard must this be? I cannot but wonder at the process that this man must have gone through to arrive at that decision.

II have a long standing philosophy, faith is within me Although many around me also claim it and wish to share the experience with me, my faith is mine alone. My political views are within me, and although many around me claim the same views, they are mine alone. Those two sets of belief occasionally intersect, but they are clearly distinct sets.

If others state a set of beliefs, whether religious or political, that are attributed to me despite my disagreement, I must disassociate myself from those statements. If the process continues, then I must disassciate myself from those making the statements.

Barack Obama has found it necessary to do both. It is the prudent thing to do.

I, too, am in a quandry with regard to whom I will give my support. McCain is deeply flawed and too closely associated with policies that I find impossible to support. Clinton's manipulation of the public and opportunistic political maneuverings are tiresome and of concern.

I, too. will watch Obama with more interest.

My background: white, Catholic, middle-aged female, Republican most of my life, now an Independent, I guess.

For Democrats, unity is important, but so does choosing the “right” candidate. Democrats can’t take for granted that people will vote for any candidate that has name democrat. Yes, people are unsatisfied with the Republican Party because of George W. Bush. However, the Republican Party does have great Presidents like Ronald Reagan. Likewise, the democrats embrace the Clinton economy, but don’t forget those messy Jimmy Carter years. Same parties, different leaders yield totally different results. So, the party is insignificant on how well a president perform on the job. It’s the one that leads the party that is important to the nation. The superdelegates should really take their time and think twice in order to choose the most qualified candidate to be the nominee. The nation can’t afford to have another Jimmy Carter, nor do democrats can afford to have another George McGovern. It's essential to choose the right leader even at the expense of unity.

If you can't see Rev Pfleger and Rev Wright for what they are then you my friend need a reality check. And to supose that any member of the clergy would have the same difficulty apparently shows your lack of a religious experience. Try writing about something you can speak intelligently about next time if there is such a subject.

Romney did drop out of the race, but his faith was his foundation and that he hold true to. I had to admire him for that. No political asperations came between him and his faith. His foundation seems to have been built upon a rock and not upon the sand.

Romney did drop out of the race, but not out of his faith. His faith was his foundation and that he holds true to. I had to admire him for that. No political aspirations came between him and his faith. His foundation seems to have been built upon a rock and not upon the sand.